Two stories have caught my attention this last week. First, the health care bill that passed in the United States Congress and second the scandal in the Catholic church that is rocking Europe. Two fascinating scenarios in the world of leading change. One where the need for change is led from the top. The other, the need for change will likely be led from the ground up. In both cases, repeated, focused pressure, lobbying, networking, and connecting are required.
This blog post is not about whether I (or others) think the health care bill was the right step to take or about what the Catholic church should or should not do. This blog post is simply an observation that change can be led from the person at the top or from folks at the bottom.
As change agents, as we go forth and create tools, write books, teach, and lead change, we need to teach from both perspectives…
Two stories have caught my attention this last week. First, the health care bill that passed in the United States Congress and second the scandal in the Catholic church that is rocking Europe. Two fascinating scenarios in the world of leading change. One where the need for change is led from the top. The other, the need for change will likely be led from the ground up. In both cases, repeated, focused pressure, lobbying, networking, and connecting are required.
This blog post is not about whether I (or others) think the health care bill was the right step to take or about what the Catholic church should or should not do. This blog post is simply an observation that change can be led from the person at the top or from folks at the bottom.
As change agents, as we go forth and create tools, write books, teach, and lead change, we need to teach from both perspectives—from the top and bottom. We need to teach all people, at all levels how to think about and lead change.
What are your thoughts? When you teach and lead change, do you coach from both perspectives? Do you use a different strategy?
